Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

cicerone imposter wrote:

MA, You're now making the rules? LOL

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

You mistakingly assume that both chapter 1 and chapter 2 are intended to give us a chronological account of creation. As we read through chapter one, it becomes evident that indeed, this is the objective. To provide a chronology of creation.

However, in chapter two, the concern is not with chronology. The focus is on God's greatest creation, man. Things are mentioned, not in chronological order, but rather with a view of their relationship to man. The garden was made for man to be placed there. The trees were planted for the benefit of man. The animals were brought to Adam for him to name them, for he would have dominion over them. Then finally, the woman was made for man, that he might have a helpmate comparable to himself. The focus is not chronology, but rather the relationship of the things mentioned to man.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

War or Peace?

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

Moses saw God as "a man of war", having been witness to the deliverence of God's people from the Egyptians. Paul proclaimed Him to be "the God of peace", mindful of the reconciliaton which He bestows through Christ Jesus. Two entirely different perspectives of the Lord, but both correct.

You really are reaching, aren't you CI? Oh, and you have still not provided any evidence of real contradictions or your reasons for not believing or agreeing with the answers you have received.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
MA, You're now making the rules? LOL

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

You mistakingly assume that both chapter 1 and chapter 2 are intended to give us a chronological account of creation. As we read through chapter one, it becomes evident that indeed, this is the objective. To provide a chronology of creation.

However, in chapter two, the concern is not with chronology. The focus is on God's greatest creation, man. Things are mentioned, not in chronological order, but rather with a view of their relationship to man. The garden was made for man to be placed there. The trees were planted for the benefit of man. The animals were brought to Adam for him to name them, for he would have dominion over them. Then finally, the woman was made for man, that he might have a helpmate comparable to himself. The focus is not chronology, but rather the relationship of the things mentioned to man.

You are certainly right, Intrepid. There is no language in chapter 2 which demands chronological exactness, such as "after that...." or anything similar.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Do you think he gave up?

Nah, probably trying to find something on the net us try and direct himself away from the truth.

0 Replies

Well, at least it's easy to tell what are his words and what are others'. I wish he would understand it is okay to make a mistake. We are only trying to answer his questions as best we (well, you two are doing the real work) can.

You can't learn anything if you can never admit not knowing something.

0 Replies

It's one of those things like... "I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong." Laughing

0 Replies

1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Not exactly a contradiction, but what law is being spoken of here?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Not exactly a contradiction, but what law is being spoken of here?

Mesquite,

I'm sure you have heard of the verse about a woman being subservient to her husband?

Well, one needs to read all of that verse. It says as a husband is unto the Lord. This meaning that if a husband is following the Lord the way he is supposed to then he will be making the correct decisions and the wife should bow to those decisions.

I do believe this is still the way God would have a marriage be, i.e., the husband the head of the household and the wife following the husband's lead. I also realize that in today's society this concept is rather outdated (to say the least). I was raised in an era when this was taught and women stayed home and took care of the kids, etc. I honestly don't know how to explain that verse except to say I don't believe it means a woman is to keep her mouth shut period. I believe it means that if the husband is following the Lord then the woman should follow her husband.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

mesquite wrote:
1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Not exactly a contradiction, but what law is being spoken of here?

Mesquite,

I'm sure you have heard of the verse about a woman being subservient to her husband?

Well, one needs to read all of that verse. It says as a husband is unto the Lord. This meaning that if a husband is following the Lord the way he is supposed to then he will be making the correct decisions and the wife should bow to those decisions.

MA, the question was about "what law" (God's comandment, of which there were many) forbids women to speak in churches. Are you speaking of another verse written by Paul?

Momma Angel wrote:

I do believe this is still the way God would have a marriage be, i.e., the husband the head of the household and the wife following the husband's lead. I also realize that in today's society this concept is rather outdated (to say the least). I was raised in an era when this was taught and women stayed home and took care of the kids, etc. I honestly don't know how to explain that verse except to say I don't believe it means a woman is to keep her mouth shut period. I believe it means that if the husband is following the Lord then the woman should follow her husband.

I can understand why you would want it not to mean that a woman should keep her mouth shut period, and somehow I just cannot imagine you doing that, but the verses seem quite clear. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Not exactly a contradiction, but what law is being spoken of here?

This is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the Apostle Paul forbids and condemns, and not without reason.

It was not permitted for them to speak in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue.

Genesis 3:16 also reads:
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

0 Replies

Actually the passages in Timothy and elsewhere I think were as much practical as theological.

Paul did not forbid women to preach or prophesy; however in their culture women were not to be teachers of men because men were supposed to be up on the stuff sufficiently to teach their families, not the other way around. And anyone who has witnessed a family where the wife, not the husband, was head of the family, has witnessed an unhappy family. It just works better for the husband to be the head of the family and the wife to be the heart of the family, neither subservient to the other nor complete without the other.

Likewise in a church where the women have taken over the administration and the men fade into the background, you find a sick church.

The passage about women being silent in the synagogue was also practical. The men sat close to the speaker while the women were segregated behind a partition at some distance from the men. When one could not hear the speaker from such distance, they might shout out "What did he say?"
which was distracting. So, better they ask their husbands at home rather than disturb the service.

The rules were in not so much to keep women subservient, though the culture of the times did allow for that, but the rules were to establish and maintain a proper structure and order in the family, the church, and the community.
'
We have to remember that these 'rules' were established for a culture born of Jewish tradition more than 2000 years ago. Customs, cultures, mores, and traditions change over time and the Church has changed with them. I teach a very astute coed classes these days and that's okay. But some universal truths stand the test of time. I am very grateful that I have a husband who loves me as Christ loves the Church and who is very much the head of our household and family. It makes it very easy and logical to submit as appropriate. (Okay, sometimes I have to adapt, but its almost the same thing.)

To submit to God's instruction and do things the way He ordains is not the least bit oppressive for anybody and it is a beautiful thing to watch the results.

0 Replies

foxfyre wrote:

And anyone who has witnessed a family where the wife, not the husband, was head of the family, has witnessed an unhappy family. It just works better for the husband to be the head of the family and the wife to be the heart of the family, neither subservient to the other nor complete without the other.

I am appalled at your gross generalization. If one extrapolates from your post, one might conclude that you believe if a home is headed by the husband, there is a happy family. Do you really think that the differences in whether a family is happy or not has to do with whether the husband has control?

You have to really be putting on the blinders to believe that. Ask any abused wife whose husband is the "head" of the family.

What about each family maintaining itself in the way that is best for the individual family? Each person has a different mixture of strengths and weakness that he/she brings to the family. It seems to be that each family need to be configured in the way that is best for the individual couple.

Quote:

I am very grateful that I have a husband who loves me as Christ loves the Church and who is very much the head of our household and family. It makes it very easy and logical to submit as appropriate. (Okay, sometimes I have to adapt, but its almost the same thing.)

Maybe this works in YOUR house, but I doubt whether you can generalize this concept to all marriages.

Going back to your quote at the top of my post: Even though I was never a Christian, I had a similar belief as you.....................when I was fourteen. Luckly, I outgrew that.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

foxfyre wrote:
And anyone who has witnessed a family where the wife, not the husband, was head of the family, has witnessed an unhappy family. It just works better for the husband to be the head of the family and the wife to be the heart of the family, neither subservient to the other nor complete without the other.

I am appalled at your gross generalization. If one extrapolates from your post, one might conclude that you believe if a home is headed by the husband, there is a happy family. Do you really think that the differences in whether a family is happy or not has to do with whether the husband has control?

You have to really be putting on the blinders to believe that. Ask any abused wife whose husband is the "head" of the family.

What about each family maintaining itself in the way that is best for the individual family? Each person has a different mixture of strengths and weakness that he/she brings to the family. It seems to be that each family need to be configured in the way that is best for the individual couple.

Quote:
I am very grateful that I have a husband who loves me as Christ loves the Church and who is very much the head of our household and family. It makes it very easy and logical to submit as appropriate. (Okay, sometimes I have to adapt, but its almost the same thing.)

Maybe this works in YOUR house, but I doubt whether you can generalize this concept to all marriages.

Going back to your quote at the top of my post: Even though I was never a Christian, I had a similar belief as you.....................when I was fourteen. Luckly, I outgrew that.

Phoenix, I was a battered child. I have been a certified substance abuse counselor working with families of addicts. And going hand and hand with substances abuse, not not limited to substance abuse, as executive director of a large YWCA, I was one of the founders of the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas. I have organized safe houses for women and children victims of domestic violence and have taken these people into my own home. Believe me, I know what domestic violence is and what the implications are of the victims of it.

What I have outlined in my post above is the order of things for a Christian household. It only works if the principles inherent in that are present. All who consider themselves Christian don't always grasp the concept, but for those who do it works every single time. The man who beats up on his wife and kids is definitely not loving his wife and kids as Christ loves the Church.

If your family has a different system that works for you, then that's wonderful for you. Maybe somewhere there is a happy family somehwere in which the wife rules the husband and everything else. I've never seen one personally, but I won't rule out the possibility that it could happen.

And if you think that makes me a meek, mild, wimpy, subservient type, you sure don't know me. Smile

And now I'm off to the days appointments. Back later.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Maybe somewhere there is a happy family somehwere in which the wife rules the husband and everything else. I've never seen one personally, but I won't rule out the possibility that it could happen.

The wife "rules the husband"??? I would think that a marriage where either the husband or wife "rules" would not be a very mature, or happy one. I was thinking in terms of an adult, equal, partnership where each person ultiizes those strengths of which he/she is the more capable.

Actually, each individual facet of the marriage would not be "equal", because abilities are unequal, but overall, the marriage would be one of equality, through compromise and negotiation.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Maybe somewhere there is a happy family somehwere in which the wife rules the husband and everything else. I've never seen one personally, but I won't rule out the possibility that it could happen.

The wife "rules the husband"??? I would think that a marriage where either the husband or wife "rules" would not be a very mature, or happy one. I was thinking in terms of an adult, equal, partnership where each person ultiizes those strengths of which he/she is the more capable.

Actually, each individual facet of the marriage would not be "equal", because abilities are unequal, but overall, the marriage would be one of equality, through compromise and negotiation.

Phoenix,
Foxyfyre did not say that anyone "rules". We often hear that a marriage is 50/50. That is not true. Both a husband and wife must each give 100% - not 50% each. That is true in a Christian or non-Christian home.

What she is trying to convey is not a husband having "control", but taking the lead in the Christian home with the wife being his helpmate. That does not put her any less than the husband. She is still equal, but the husband would lead the family in prayer, ensure that they attend services regularly etc.

She, and I, have both given explanations of the verses mentioned. Nowhere did it say that women are any less than men, or should be, in today's society.

It kind of goes back to the old saying, "The family that prays together, stays together."

0 Replies

I think you misunderstand what Fox meant by her use of the word "rules". I don't think she meant it as you have taken it.

I am often at a loss to understand why people get so confused over this passage. I have known people to tell me that this passage essentially says that the woman is basically nothing more than a slave within the marriage. Or that the passage says she is not to have her own voice/opinions on matters concerning her family. Both ideas are nonsense and not supported by what Paul is saying.

In a nutshell, what Paul is saying is simply this. When husband and wife cannot agree on something, the wife should submit to her husband's authority. Someone has to make the final decision on matters and continued arguments over something is not good for the marriage. If both husband and wife were adament on maintaining their respective position on some matter, no decision would get made and you would have chaos within the family. Someone has to be ultimately responsible for making a decision. And according to the Bible, the ideal is that the husband is to have that responsibility. Nothing Paul says indicates that a marriage cannot be successful if the wife takes that ultimate responsibility, just that ideally it is the husband's role and he will be the one responsible back to God.

I hope this gives you a better idea, along with what Fox wrote, of what this passage is saying. You may not agree with what Paul is saying, but it certainly is not as chauvanistic as some would make it out to be.

0 Replies

Yeah really, everyone's equal but some are more equal than others. I get it.

0 Replies

Quote:

In a nutshell, what Paul is saying is simply this. When husband and wife cannot agree on something, the wife should submit to her husband's authority.

Getting back to when I was 14, I remember that I had an argument with my girlfriend. My position at that time was that in a disagreement, where there is a tie, the husband casts the deciding vote. Looking back, what I was saying, was similar to what Foxfyre is saying.

At that time though, I was a kid, living under the "rule" of my father, and looking for a "Prince Charming" to sweep me away and take care of me. As a young girl, the only concept that I had was that a strong man would take care of me, and I would be happy to submit to his authority, in order to achieve that protection.

As an adult, and no longer living with the culture of "Ozzie and Harriet", I have learned that I am very capable of protecting myself, thank you, and don't need to give up my freedom for comfort.

0 Replies

Great Phoenix. Whatever works for you. Again, we are talking about what God considers to be the ideal situation and in the context of a Christian family.

0 Replies

Coastal Rat wrote:

In a nutshell, what Paul is saying is simply this. When husband and wife cannot agree on something, the wife should submit to her husband's authority. Someone has to make the final decision on matters and continued arguments over something is not good for the marriage.

Same quote, but I had another thought. If you carry this idea out to its logical conclusion, the husband would have his way on EVERY issue. If a woman does not agree with her husband, the final decision would automatically be his. So the only time that the woman would have a "say" in the marriage, is when the two of them agreed in the first place.

I would suspect that many women who live by this precept, do have their say the way that women did in earlier generations..................through manipulation and subterfuge. I prefer a direct approach, as I believe it is much more mature and honest.

0 Replies

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know